Star Trek S1E02 "Who Mourns for Adonais?" #TOS #StarTrek https://t.co/LIkzMGcPIi has interesting features 1) sexism tempered by female crew members' competence, (2) advancement of Ancient Aliens theory & 3) use of Pre-Modern anti-Muslim slur 4) appearance of Walter Koenig: Chekov

For the 1st time, Michelle Nichols as Uhura performs a technical task. In previous episodes, she basically was a receptionist or a switchboard operator.
After Scotty the Chief Engineer oogles Leslie Parrish as Lt. Carolyn Palamas on the bridge, Capt Kirk basically states that women won't go far in Star Fleet because they end their careers for marriage. She's part of the landing party where she & Kirk exchange these lines:
Apollo changes her miniskirt uniform into an alluring evening gown and does her hairdo quite elegantly. The camera gives viewers multiple shots of her the remainder of the episode. https://t.co/CpHBibAiNf
Despite her being tempted by the life Apollo offers her, she does her duty as a Star Fleet Officer and spurns him, thus draining him of his power so that the Enterprise's crew and the landing party could free themselves.
.@JasonColavito wrote that this episode does the Ancient Aliens "theory" with more sophistication than its most prominent contemporary mouthpieces https://t.co/F1YGVF1A7k
When Apollo takes Lt Palamas away, Scotty in a jealous rage lunges for him & shouts "You bloodthirsty Saracen, what have you done with her?" So several centuries in the future, people continue to use that pre-modern European anti-Muslim nomenclature. BTW, if you search "Saracen"
on Twitter, you'll find contemporary anti-Muslim bigots, rugby fans & players of Age of Empires II.

Finally, I love me some Chekov!
@threadreaderapp unroll

More from Culture

One of the authors of the Policy Exchange report on academic free speech thinks it is "ridiculous" to expect him to accurately portray an incident at Cardiff University in his study, both in the reporting and in a question put to a student sample.


Here is the incident Kaufmann incorporated into his study, as told by a Cardiff professor who was there. As you can see, the incident involved the university intervening to *uphold* free speech principles:


Here is the first mention of the Greer at Cardiff incident in Kaufmann's report. It refers to the "concrete case" of the "no-platforming of Germaine Greer". Any reasonable reader would assume that refers to an incident of no-platforming instead of its opposite.


Here is the next mention of Greer in the report. The text asks whether the University "should have overruled protestors" and "stepped in...and guaranteed Greer the right to speak". Again the strong implication is that this did not happen and Greer was "no platformed".


The authors could easily have added a footnote at this point explaining what actually happened in Cardiff. They did not.

You May Also Like